Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    July 6, 2012 8:30pm-9:00pm PDT

8:30 pm
remember -- does it also allow for other regional type of ground-floor uses? >> yes. commissioner antonini: this seems like a good project to make. it has been pointed out, it only uses 90,000 square feet toward the office space that is available. is also mentioned that it was built by staff this use would help to enhance the ability to preserve the building, which is something we do want to preserve, because we have active rent in there and it would have acted uses, which it lacks now. the also mentioned in the report, although i'm not sure why the existing businesses in their our office-type businesses.
8:31 pm
so, there is a bland. b-s that are not could stay, obviously. -- the ones that are not could stay, obviously. i moved to approve. >> i second that. commissioner moore: just one question. the public is always concerned with these office conversions. transit impact, the office fees. there is a sentence in the staff report following the table on page 3, which it says we would like to have an explanation from the director. "please note that these are subject to change after planning department approval." what does that mean? >> it relates to the annual update to the feed. the exact dollar amount might
8:32 pm
increase depending on what the -- dbi-- the fees it raised annually. commissioner moore: ok it does not disappear? the public might read that and think "oh, there are some deals being made." commissioner miguel: the reason i seconded this is since i've lived in the vicinity, i am very happy to see this building renovated after 38 years. the only reliable space there for years was of betting the company that is no longer there and has not been for some time. the configuration of the building is not really conducive to a ground-floor retail. he would have to destroy a part of the historic fabric of the
8:33 pm
building to even do that. so, judging from the uses and the general vicinity, i think this is an excellent situation. president fong: any further comments? commissioner sugaya: i am going to vote against the motion because i am trying to hold the line of pdr and other uses. >> we have a motion to approve with conditions. on that motion -- [roll call vote] so moved, commissioners. we are under commissioners' questions and matters. item four. commissioner antonini: thank you. an article in today's business section talk about the increase
8:34 pm
in housing prices in some cities in the united states, and one of them was san francisco, which never had a huge fall in prices, but did have some areas that were challenged. there was conjecture in the article as to why this happened, and one thing that was mentioned was cities where a large number of upper income households with better incomes during the recovery. it mentioned that to under 11,400 professional service sector jobs were reported recently in san francisco, and that is an increase of 12,400 from last year. to give you a perspective on why this is importanct, downtown areas of lack of jobs to attract people. for example, i think san diego and charlotte -- the figures i
8:35 pm
have show only 45,000 jobs in the downtown area. of jobs are not there, and they are sometimes attractive to people to live in downtown areas. they're facing a long commute in the same area. the jobs would have to come first. there is certainly nothing wrong when we are building housing to note that large number of -- numbers of housing -- the market rate housing is above the 20th percentile, because if someone buys them or rinse them and adds the tax revenue and moves to new citizens into san francisco to create jobs for our citizens and our work force here -- i think
8:36 pm
that is an important thing to look at if we consider this. a lot of cities would love to have this problem. they have been trying to do some things in phoenix to create a downtown. even though they have a lot of projects there, the large concentration of residents in the downtown area, student housing connected with the branch of the university and other cities can attract detail -- cannot attract retail, even some of the glamorous city's. that people want to be here is very beneficial and we should keep that in mind as we talk about other subject later -- subjects later in our calendar. thank you. president fong: commissioner miguel. commissioner miguel: yes, i had a few meetings this week on items on today's calendar. 1 regarded the project at parcel
8:37 pm
t, the old central freeway parcels. natoma and 14th. i went to a meeting with the mta. this one was out in richmond. in my mind, it was a lot of fluff with no new information. and of course, no estimation whatsoever as to when and if that would come to pass. it was the same solution for the presidio intersection and fell more intersection -- fillmore intersection. so. one very interesting meeting was the civic design review. we have seen that in the paper this week, the design for the
8:38 pm
new control tower. it's interesting, because you could really call it a begin. was even more interesting was the information from the faa who could deal with the top of it. not just the staffing. they designed the top and they tell the architects to figure out some way to get it up there. the angles, the sidelines to where they have to go. the tilt of its. -- the tilt of it. it is a very interesting experience for me.
8:39 pm
and of course, taking a look at the rest of it, which, truthfully, i think we will have a major piece of architecture sitting out there. it is very interesting. a very tight geographic relationship between terminals 1 and two. they had one of where the people had not been through security. where it -- one where they had. keep them separated. i think once it is going, you will be very pleased with it. president fong: commissioner sugaya. commissioner sugaya: yes, mr. rich being you're reminded me. at some point can we get a status on cpmc? president fong: commissioner
8:40 pm
antonini? commissioner antonini: i should mention that i have had meetings with products or unsers ofp outarcel c, natoma, larkin, 1490 francisco, which is also on our calendar today. >> commissioners, we are on item five, director's announcements. >> just two things. we would like to schedule -- in light of the hearing last week, i think we would like to schedule some more detailed briefings on the background information on the plan. we are happy to do that in public hearings or individually with you as well to talk about that. the second thing, with respect to our budget, the committee met to approve our budget this
8:41 pm
week. there are still some points of agreements, if you will. they have chosen to wait until this afternoon when they will be voting on the entire budget, our department budget. the issue is a couple of positions and whether they should move forward or not. i will say, in spite of that come up most of the changes to our budget were accepted by the committee. so, we are having discussions with members of that committee all week long. that concludes my presentation. i will note for the record that the board of appeals did not meet. >> item 6, review of the the past week's items with the board of supervisors. >> good afternoon, commissioners. the bulk of my presentation is
8:42 pm
about the cpmc hearings. on monday, they continued with the hearings begin monday was focused on the health care provisions. president chiu and supervisor campeau'os joined the meetings. informed the public that one of the key development notions in the agreement was being renegotiated. this meant the previous commitments were no loggers satisfied, because the provision deals with the metrics that would be used that will allow acpmc to close st. louis -- st. luke's as soon as possible. there was a metric that would allow cpmc to close st. luke's
8:43 pm
if the whole system more in dire straits. the cpmc would have to be operating below 01% margin for two years. this margin seemed significantly low for productions at the time. based on input from an independent third-party, the 1% operating margin was highly unlikely. however, based on new projections about resident, -- residents, cpmc is lower than previously reported, although not quite at the 1% threshold. the city was to make sure that
8:44 pm
it is one that is unlikely to be met because the continued operation of st. luke's is one of the most important provisions in the amendment. the goal had been to come to monday's hearing with a solution in hand, not just a problem. although this did not happen, staff is helpful to have a new solution to the provision soon, understanding the development agreement would not move forward until there's a solution to this provision. president chiu and supervisor campos regretted that they had not been informed as soon as city staff knew about this change. they acknowledged the agreement would not go forward without insuring st. luke's operation. the next hearing is scheduled
8:45 pm
for july 9 and that is focused on transportation in the public realm. all reports have been done by the budget analyst and the comptroller's office. we do have a pending environmental appeal. currently on july 17, the board is scheduled to hear the seir. that was the main action this week at the board. that leaves us with eight planning appeals pending for the board of supervisors. a very high number. they are expected to be heard in july. 5 new introductions. there were three pieces of legislation related to the housing trust fund i would like to share with you. the housing trust fund involves
8:46 pm
the charter amendment and the production of affordable housing, increasing moderate income housing, and stimulating the market rate housing production. it is a charter amendment that will go to the borders -- to the voters. the charter amendment is sponsored by the mayor, supervisors wiener, olague, and mar. and finally, this will not be scheduled before you unless you request. an amendment to the san francisco environment code to include new fountain so they may allow all people to fill their water bottles. we plan on doing that, but he would not be hearing it unless
8:47 pm
you request. that includes a report. are there any questions? commissioner antonini: thank you, ms. rogers, for your report. i did notice the thing about the water sources, but most places have faucet's. you can get water almost anywhere. is probably not a bad idea to make it a little more aesthetic. but it works. the other question i had was with regard to the scene looks issue that you spoke about. if my memory serves me, correct me, if i'm wrong -- st. luke's operating margin did not apply cpmc to shutter st. luke's. it just gives them that opportunity, but they would not have to do that. also, if i remember right, there's no reason they could not sell that to another party. is that correct? >> the first one is correct.
8:48 pm
that was in my notes. the second one -- that is also correct. thank you. commissioner moore: could i ask, when you talk about new and modern buildings, what kind of building type are you referring to? i have a hard time believing every residential building would be subject to this requirement? it raises all kinds of issues of public health and accessibility, security, etc. >> at this point, i just have a short summary, which up provided. it does not give me more detail about the types of buildings. i could give the details to the commission. commissioner moore: ok. the other question is, regarding the housing trust fund. you mentioned the basic principles of. i would be curious what you
8:49 pm
would encompass in the discussion of balanced growth? is that a more equitable distribution of housing types? >> that is not my language. that is the language described by the resolution and the ordinances. so, we can -- we can get you more information on that whole package. >> as i understand it, the ballot measure is -- what i do not know is -- >> i think they're intense was to have it -- the intent was to have it approved. >> we would want a hearing on both items.
8:50 pm
>> commissioner sugaya? commissioner sugaya: i think the report was sufficient for me to understand the cpmc situation. to your knowledge, are there health representatives? >> to his knowledge. yes, there were. >> i was just talking about the relationship between cpmc and health? is that the time of our hearing -- i think i am the one who said all sutter health needs to is drivecpmc down -- drive cpmc
8:51 pm
down to 1%. >> thank you. >> commissioners, we have a couple of highlights. the architectural review committee went into regular hearings. on a regular calendar, to my understanding, that is the first time that body actually initiated, and it was for a property for 2004, is directly known as the san jordan's bar. they approved be an annoyance for the procedures and fees. we got -- they approved the amendments for the procedures and fees. they also reviewed the design to alter union square.
8:52 pm
it is part of the subway. after candid comments, they ultimately recommended approval. those were the highlights of that hearing. which will put us under general public comment. at this time, members of the public may address the commission on items except for agenda items. with respect to the agenda items, i your opportunity to address the commission will correspond with the agenda. i have one speaker card. president fong: great. i have one speaker card. linda chapman. >> at a recent hearing, i told you about the history, and i
8:53 pm
just wanted to talk a little bit more about some of those buildings we were trying to save. at the time on jones street, there was a big move to demolish rental housing to create condo's. there were lessons learned from that. 1300 sacramento and jones, which is still there, was proposed for demolition. the battle went on for seven years. at the time, it was considered sensitive. it was a curated building. it was landmarked. all the sudden, the developer decided it would be a good thing to develop a 2200 story condo. and he evicted his 22 tenants. and mentioned this before. and then, what happened? the planning commission did not
8:54 pm
like it. they turned it down unanimously. what did he do? he had gotten rid of his tenants. he opened all the windows nt have homeless people move in. the neighbors objected, but there was nothing he could do. he was worried about mildew. so, they were living in theire. we were at this impasse that went on for years and years and years. meanwhile, one tenant managed to stay there. it became a spreading threat. staff had to deal with 1300 sacramento, and they felt maybe there would be a solution. now it would be 16 stories.
8:55 pm
322 units as opposed to 11. -- there would be 22 units as opposed to a 11. lo and behold, he began converting the proposals. he was going to give $150,000 and they said, thank you very much, but we're not supporting this. next, the builders decided it would give $150,000 to the commission, which was very happy. and it just went on from there. it became a threat to many, many buildings up their. and the staff came to realize it and had to find a way back out that they had given conditions to the developer. they were kind of trapped. they tightened and tightened. now he had built.
8:56 pm
he came up with the building site, and what did we do? we had to go to court and sue for seven years. president fong: thank you, ms. chapman. >> good afternoon, commissioners. jim meeko. i would like to talk about the central corridor. this incursion into the western plan area that has little to do with high-tech and everything to do with responding to political pressure from large property owners and "to chronicle the risk in particular, the academy of arts university, the largest of them all. creating a planning area is
8:57 pm
shortsighted, especially when you consider the impact on the industrial base. the source of our concerns is our very own planning department. you as a commissioned have spent hours looking at the pdr health of the city. you can't keep pushing these businesses this way and that. more are moving all the time. this pulls the rug out from under them. good planning should find ways to balance compatible and incompatible uses. the western plan has done that
8:58 pm
and i appreciate the opportunity to show you how soon. but if you must play santa claus to well-connected developers, don't sacrifice the rest of this community's to provide cover for this blatantly political move. go ahead and carve out the chronicle, but leave the rest of south of market alone. it was your very own planners who marked these pdr locations. it is critical for the city's ability to offer jobs to the work force. thank you. president fong: any additional general public comment? seeing none, we will move to our regular calendar. >> commissioners, under your regular calendar, item -- the
8:59 pm
market and octavia area plan, parcel c, request for a conditional use authorization. >> good morning, members of the commission. in with planning staff. -- i am was planning staff. this is to approve a planning unit for property bounded on octavia boulevard and oak/laguna. it is currently part of the surface parking lot. the project would remove the surface parking lot, regrade the site, and create a new mixed-